Posted on 05/19/2005 8:34:20 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Thursday that President Bush and Republican senators are trying to "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" in their push to confirm controversial judicial nominees.
"The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch," Reid said. "Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority. Today, in the face of President Bush's power grab, that's more important than ever."
Republicans are threatening to eliminate the Democrats' ability to use filibusters to block Bush's judicial picks, beginning with federal appeals court nominee Priscilla Owen.
Reid says that the Constitution does not require that judicial nominees get confirmation votes, allowing the minority to block them. Bush and other Republicans who argue otherwise "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will call a vote next week on whether Republican senators are willing to let the minority Democrats continue to block the White House's judicial appointments through filibusters.
"The principle is that judicial nominees with support of a majority of United States senators deserve a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Frist said.
But while senators argue over Owen's nomination on the Senate floor, the driving force in backroom negotiations in the Capitol is how senators will treat a future Supreme Court nominee if a vacancy opens up in the next two years.
"This whole debate, for me, is about the Supreme Court," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., one of the Senate negotiators who scurried from office to office Wednesday trying to work out a deal that would avoid a showdown over whether to block the use of filibusters against judicial nominees. "What do you do with the next level? Can you get the Senate back to more of a normal working situation?"
Senate negotiators were to get back to work Thursday trying to find a compromise on confirming Owen and the seven other U.S. Appeals Court nominees. But while lower court nominees are at the forefront of the argument, the clear subtext of the debate is how the Senate will treat a future Supreme Court nominee from President Bush.
Republican leaders are concerned that Democrats want to enshrine judicial filibusters in the Senate so they can block a future Bush nominee to the nation's highest court, along with Owen and the six other lower court nominees they already have blocked using the parliamentary tactic that requires 60 votes to overcome.
While there are no current vacancies, Supreme Court watchers expect a retirement before the end of Bush's presidency. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is 80, is fighting thyroid cancer.
"When a Supreme Court position becomes open the issue will be, will it require 60 votes to approve a Supreme Court judge — something that's never required — or will it be a majority vote? Must we have a super majority?" said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan.
But Democrats worry that Republicans want to get rid of judicial filibusters so the White House can use the Senate's GOP majority to ram through a nominee that Democrats will find extreme and objectionable. If such a move were to succeed, it would give the GOP full control over which nominees could be confirmed for lifetime judgeships since the party controls the White House and has a 55-44-1 majority in the Senate.
"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," Reid said. "The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general and legislation like Social Security privatization."
Senate centrists hope to avoid both options. If they can get 12 senators to agree to a deal — six Republicans and six Democrats — they can prevent Frist from banning judicial filibusters and keep Reid from filibustering Bush appointees.
Under the most recent Republican-crafted offer, Democrats would have to allow the confirmation of six Bush nominees: Owen, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, as well as Michigan nominees Susan Neilson, David McKeague and Richard Griffin. The Senate would scuttle the nominations of Idaho lawyer William Myers and Michigan nominee Henry Saad, aides said.
But more importantly, both sides would have to operate on "good faith" when it comes to future nominations. Republicans would be bound not to ban judicial filibusters only if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters on court nominees except for extraordinary situations, aides said.
The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are being held behind closed doors.
"If we can get through this week, really, get through these eight, I think calmer heads will prevail down the road and we'll have a better chance of dealing with the Supreme Court nominees in a traditional way," Graham said.
This is a list of what Democrats used to think about filibustering judicial nominations.
(I didn't do the research; other freepers did the hard work)
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)
Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)
Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
Please Daschle, come back...
Coming from the man who claims that our founding fathers "cherished the filibuster" before it existed.
Yeah, imagine the nerve of the President, just because he won the election, of thinking that he can just go and nominate judges who match his philosopy! What gall!
I was against the filibuster before I was for it. :-\
Thanks for the post; you beat me to it! As for the Dems & their "alternate reality": Republicans have the ability to alter Senate RULES (nothing to do with the Constitution) to assert the power given them by the voters. C'MON, PUNK, MAKE MY DAY!!!
Reid and the Dems are trying to re-write representative government. They want the minority to rule over the majority, Bizarro world.
I prefer to think they are trying to reintroduce reality to a Senate that sometimes seems totally out of touch.
Looks like he's wearing a giant Senate Dunce cap.
Democrats "worry," Republicans "ram."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist poses for pictures on Capitol Hill Tuesday, May 17, 2005, with judicial nominees Janice Rogers Brown, center, and Pricilla Owen. The Senate's top leaders have ended their attempt to find a compromise on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but other members continued to work on a possible deal to clear five blocked appeals court appointees and end threats to change the long-standing filibuster rules. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
Only in the papers.
In reality...it's the exact opposite.
You mean, they have the power to reinvent reality? D@mn. No wonder a few people want to become president - they are given superpowers.
These quotes need to be read repeatedly by every GOP senator during the debate. Over and over and over and over and over...
""Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority... ."
Janice Brown - female and black
Priscilla Owen - female
What exactly is his definitition of the word "minority?"
Another case of Demorat projection.
"The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch," Reid said.
Nor is the senate allowed to veto Senator--it should vote. The clear fact is that these so-called "outside the mainstream" nominees are actually people who would be confirmed if given a vote.
The confirmations are about abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, and other hot issues on which the democrats are too cowardly to state their positions.
actually this is very useful.
Demcrcats acuse the acuser of the same "crime".
Demcrats have a very left wing radical world view. The REALITY now is that Republicans have won election after election since 1980. Reid is trying to keep HIS REALITY from shattering.
This is no longer about filibusters or even judges. This is now about whose reality will control. This is about the BASELINE of all future debates.
For democrats it will be starting all debates from a communist/socialist start point. What government regulations can restrict an individual into compliance.
For republicans, if they have the testicular fortitude to want victory, all debates will start from a capitalist/individualistic(not libertarian) start point. Taxes are bad and the military is good and unleash businesses.
Reid's objective is to deny a reality that began with the expulsion of Jimmy Carter.
Reid is desperate to protect the ability of senate democrats to perform "favors", curry favor with government patronage jobs, and basically to show somehow that a democrat in DC is somehow relevant. Reid never got the memo, Kerry lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.